No Skin in the Game

“A person who has skin in the game has invested in the company
they are running.” (Ref. 1)
Having “no skin in the game” means that one has no investment, i.e., the person has not
risked anything. To have "skin in the game" is to have incurred monetary risk by being
invested in achieving a goal.

QUESTION: If you had to invest your money in a company, would you prefer to invest in a company
run by someone who has nothing invested in the company and, therefore nothing to lose if the
company fails, or would you prefer to invest in a company in which the person running the company
has invested a significant amount of his/her own money and stands to personally lose this money
if the company fails?

QUESTION: If you were a soldier, would you be inspired to fight for a commander who leads you
into battle and shares the risks of war or for a commander who stays in the rear and issues
orders for you to fight while he avoids all the risks?

“. . . in a televised address from the White House, President Barack
Obama presented his strategy for how to ‘degrade and ultimately destroy’ the Islamic State in
Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS. ‘We will not get dragged into another ground war,’ he declared. His
plan calls for air strikes in two countries, a multinational coalition, and the deployment of
four hundred and seventy-five more service members to Iraq, but, he said, those troops ‘will not
have a combat mission.’ They will execute a ‘counterterrorism campaign.’ “(Ref.
2) Does this sound like the president is putting any American skin
in the game? Or is he asking others to invest while the U.S. does not? The president is asking
other nations to put the lives of their troops at risk while refusing to do the same with
American troops – hardly a way to gain support in the fight against Islamic terror.

If we want other countries to join us in the fight against ISIS, we must
be willing to assume the same risks that they do. If we want other countries’ support, we
need to have some skin in the game, just as they do.

“It should come as no surprise that Turkey so far refuses to put boots
on the ground to fight the ISIS . . .
“While there is much to criticize about our erstwhile NATO ally’s
government, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has clearly made a calculation that he can’t trust
the United States — or more accurately, that he can’t trust this administration.
“And why should he?
“The level of confusion, incompetence and lack of will President Obama
has demonstrated in dealing with the multiple crises that face us in the Middle East is mind numbing.
“He has ordered airstrikes against ISIS, too late and too few, but refused
to allow the military to do its job well. Without Special Forces spotters on the ground, an air
campaign can’t be entirely effective.
”In a remarkable breach of protocol, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, made it clear in congressional testimony in mid-September that we shouldn’t
rule out the use of US ground troops, despite the president’s multiple declarations that no
Americans would fight this war except from the air.
”The administration is asking Turkish troops to fight ISIS
alongside Kurds, their traditional foes, but is unwilling to commit our troops to stand with
them? [Emphasis mine]
“We have the best-trained, most experienced fighters in the world, but
we won’t allow them to battle a brutal army that not only is capturing wide swaths of territory
in Iraq and Syria, but also has announced its aims to bring jihad to American soil?
“What Obama has shown is a willingness to draw red lines and then allow
them to be crossed, as he did in Syria.
“He’s shown himself quite adept at squandering the blood and treasure
spent in Iraq by withdrawing American troops precipitously, which virtually guaranteed the
collapse of the country we are now witnessing.
"The president’s fecklessness on this has come under increased scrutiny
with the publication of a memoir by former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who lays bare Obama’s
false claim that he withdrew troops because Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki wouldn’t agree
to let them stay.
"The president chose to pull out all of our troops at once rather
than personally pushing for a status-of-forces agreement that would have kept Iraq from coming
apart at the seams. [Emphasis mine]
"Obama has put together a shaky coalition to fight ISIS, but without
US leadership — our willingness to use all the resources at our disposal — how can we possibly
hope others will do the job we’re unwilling to do? [Emphasis mine]
“. . . it makes no sense that we tie the military’s hands behind their
backs by limiting ourselves to airstrikes without the proper US intelligence on the ground to
make them effective. - - -
“. . . wars can’t be won by announcing to our enemies what we can’t or won’t
do — or the day on which we will withdraw, regardless of the conditions on the ground, which is what
Obama has done in Afghanistan. - - -
“{Not} only {are} our enemies . . . getting mixed messages — which is
dangerous enough {but it is} also our allies. Under this president, America’s word is becoming
worth less and less.
“It’s easy enough to point fingers at those who should take up the fight
against Islamist extremism, not least those countries and governments that have helped foster it.
“But when the United States can’t be counted on to fully engage {in}
the struggle, no one else will fill the vacuum.” [Emphasis mine] (Ref.
3)

If countries have no faith in America’s commitment to fight alongside them,
they will turn to other countries that may not be particularly friendly to the U.S. or whom may have
agendas that are not in concert with America’s objectives in the world. For example, Iraq and Iran
agreed “to enter a formal relationship to fight the Islamic State group {ISIS, which} should be deeply
troubling to the United States. . . .
“. . . Part of the problem is that the administration doesn’t want to take
on the Islamic State directly in Iraq, preferring to provide American military advisers who will play
a severely limited role while the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps actually provides thousands of
troops on the ground.
“. . . expediency in the fight against the Islamic State is a bad strategy
for the U.S. and for the world. . . .” (Ref. 4)

If we want other countries to join us in the fight against ISIS, we must
be willing to assume the same risks that they do. If the U.S. wants other countries’ support
in war against Islamic jihad and if America wants to defeat this barbaric enemy, then we need to
have skin in the game. America must do more than simply wage an antiseptic proxy war
against ISIS.